list_active_bookings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates the filtering behavior, pagination mechanics (10 records per page, skip increments), and response shape (same as list_bookings). This is comprehensive and exceeds typical descriptions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then provides a use case, then adds response and pagination details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simple interface (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the status filter, response shape, pagination behavior, and use case. The only minor omission is an explicit statement that it is read-only, but the verb 'list' inherently implies that, so the description is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully describes the 'skip' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining exactly how to use 'skip' for pagination ('increase skip by 10 to fetch the next page'), which goes beyond the schema's generic description and is practically useful.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: 'List only ACTIVE bookings for the API key account' with explicit statuses (pre_trip, in_progress, in_termination). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool list_bookings by focusing on active rentals, and even provides a concrete question it answers ('which vehicles are out on a trip right now?').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a clear use case ('Use this to answer...') and clarifies the scope ('only ACTIVE bookings'), which implies when to use it over list_bookings. However, it does not explicitly name list_bookings as an alternative or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.